ReviewMicroorganisms2019
Microfluidic-Based Approaches for Foodborne Pathogen Detection.
Review in Microorganisms, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in rapid detection technologies for zoonotic diseases: a one health-oriented review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Paper-Based Microfluidic Devices: A Powerful Strategy for Rapid Detection.Micromachines · 2025Review
- Advances of MXene in Detection and Sterilization of Foodborne Pathogens.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A portable device for probiotic counting and viability assessment based on microfluidic chip and image recognition.iMetaOmics · 2025Article
- A simple, low-cost, and highly efficient protocol for rapid isolation of pathogenic bacteria from human blood.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Classification and Identification of Foodborne Bacteria in Beef by Utilising Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Coupled with Chemometric Methods.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Droplet digital molecular beacon-LAMP assay via pico-injection for ultrasensitive detection of pathogens.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Tools to Enumerate and Predict Distribution Patterns of EnvironmentalMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Pneumatically Driven Microfluidic Platform and Fully Automated Particle Concentration System for the Capture and Enrichment of Pathogens.ACS omega · 2023Article
- A Short Review on Miniaturized Biosensors for the Detection of Nucleic Acid Biomarkers.Biosensors · 2023Review
- Integration of three non-interfering SERS probes combined with ConA-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles for extraction and detection of multiple foodborne pathogens.Mikrochimica acta · 2023Article
- Design and 3D printing of an electrochemical sensor forHeliyon · 2023Article
- Application of Microfluidics for Bacterial Identification.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Recent Progress and Challenges on the Microfluidic Assay of Pathogenic Bacteria Using Biosensor Technology.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Recent Advancements in Nanobiosensors: Current Trends, Challenges, Applications, and Future Scope.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Recent Methods for the Viability Assessment of Bacterial Pathogens: Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Recent advancements in microfluidic chip biosensor detection of foodborne pathogenic bacteria: a review.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
- Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for Detection of Plant Pathogens in Wheat (Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Overview of Rapid Detection Methods forFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Food safety is of obvious importance, but there are frequent problems caused by foodborne pathogens that threaten the safety and health of human beings worldwide. Although the most classic method for detecting bacteria is the plate counting method, it takes almost three to seven days to get the bacterial results for the detection. Additionally, there are many existing technologies for accurate determination of pathogens, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), or loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), but they are not suitable for timely and rapid on-site detection due to time-consuming pretreatment, complex operations and false positive results. Therefore, an urgent goal remains to determine how to quickly and effectively prevent and control the occurrence of foodborne diseases that are harmful to humans. As an alternative, microfluidic devices with miniaturization, portability and low cost have been introduced for pathogen detection. In particular, the use of microfluidic technologies is a promising direction of research for this purpose. Herein, this article systematically reviews the use of microfluidic technology for the rapid and sensitive detection of foodborne pathogens. First, microfluidic technology is introduced, including the basic concepts, background, and the pros and cons of different starting materials for specific applications. Next, the applications and problems of microfluidics for the detection of pathogens are discussed. The current status and different applications of microfluidic-based technologies to distinguish and identify foodborne pathogens are described in detail. Finally, future trends of microfluidics in food safety are discussed to provide the necessary foundation for future research efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.